[quote name='BingoBrown']Not hatin' on BF3 (almost bought it myself) or trying to start a flame war, but how is it more organic/real/less like a video game? It seems to me that BF3 is more like a video game, with the option to jump into tanks, vehicles, helis, jets, etc., and the ability to repair those vehicles on the fly. It's not exactly realistic. At least MW focuses solely on small arms battles, which, although not realistic either, it isn't quite as much fantasy as BF3, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
The answer to this is:
[quote name='slickkill77']This game will define this generation. It is an A-D-D cluster

. There's shit going on every 2 seconds whether its: uav, uav, uav, uav, uav, uav etc... or care package, care package, care package.
Like Soodmeg said, there's nothing inherently wrong with the game, but it is just the same stuff over, and over and over and over. This game was made for 12 year olds, who are hyped up on sugar and need to play for 1-10 hours after school.
I think you are taking his realistic comment way too seriously. I think what he meant is that it has more of a war feel to it in that people aren't moving 40 mph all over the map, uav's aren't being called in every 2 seconds, there's more team work, more variety etc...[/QUOTE]
In BF3 even when players are not playing as a team the game progressing is a logical fashion. There is a point to the things that are happening throughout the game. People are taking up positions in building, people are destroying the buildings to counter them, people are getting killed, medics are bring people back to life, recons when not being douches can rely info of opposing teams location, engines are laying traps...and the biggest thing for me is that most of the time there is a frontline and you are either gaining or losing ground like what I presume happens in a real war. They even have that suppression element so you are reward for laying down cover fire.
The game feels more real.
COD? Like slick said, is a giant cluster

of random Mcrandom doing random things. Everything is for its own sake...take classes for example. The only difference is the guns, the support isnt actually supporting anything it just has a different set of guns, recon isnt gather info of any kind its just a guy with a sniper rifle. Going left, going right, camping, jumping, none of these have any tactical decisions driving it, you do it because that is what you want to do at the time. Can people be more effective at it than others? Yes but it doesnt make it more tactical.
It reminds me of a video Trak posted of himself playing one of the other cods. First off we all know Trak is great a COD, this is in no one a insult....whatever other disclaimers I can say to that this doesnt get misunderstood. Anyway, he had a really good score something like 50 - 0 or something and he did it by standing a room shooting out the window and the door, then the window, then the door, then the window, then the door.
Trak is one of the better COD players out there and if that is what COD is about than all I can do is shrug. I neither think its impressive (not that he has to impress me) or bad, or good. I just shrug. COD makes me shrug, I dont hate it nor love it, its neither bad nor good its just there. I have gone 50 and 0 before and I have gone 10-50 and I feel about the same either way.
Last disclaimer, both games are made well for their audiences but if you ask me which one I prefer I am gonna say BF, not trying to prove it one way or the other.